I’m currently in a debate with Thiest over the authetisity of the shroud. Its a real pain in the butt as I can’t seem to find any proper peer reviewed studies to back up my point. I think one of the issue may be the bias that comes with scientits that were hand picked by church groups to study it. McCrone seem to be the only one that was a was showing evidence that the blood was fake but was discredited by his collegues for reason. Im not sure. Seems more like they didn’t like his findings

Can anyone point me to some proper peer reviewed papers or is this a hopeless fight due to the lack of proper testing done?

There is an entry on the Shroud at Skepdic HERE, with extensive links and references at the end. You won’t find a lot of high-quality peer-reviewed scientific study of the Shroud, though, because there’s no sense to it. It’s a waste of effort.

I’m currently in a debate with Thiest over the authetisity of the shroud. Its a real pain in the butt as I can’t seem to find any proper peer reviewed studies to back up my point. I think one of the issue may be the bias that comes with scientits that were hand picked by church groups to study it. McCrone seem to be the only one that was a was showing evidence that the blood was fake but was discredited by his collegues for reason. Im not sure. Seems more like they didn’t like his findings

Can anyone point me to some proper peer reviewed papers or is this a hopeless fight due to the lack of proper testing done?

The church is not to keen on having the shroud tested as when it was tested previously by C14 dating it dated to medieval times. See this link for an abstract and some other references.

Another bizzare theory about the shroud:The image on it is of Jacques De Molay,who was a leader of the knights templar in the 1300’s.The pope wanted the templars dead so he could get his hands on their money,and he had Jacques tortured and executed.I suppose the belief is that his suffering made his powerful soul imprint his appearence on the cloth before he died.I’ve heard the cloth is dated from medival times,and it’s made from linen that’s native to West Europe-that cancels out the jesus origin somewhat.

Another bizzare theory about the shroud:The image on it is of Jacques De Molay,who was a leader of the knights templar in the 1300’s.The pope wanted the templars dead so he could get his hands on their money,and he had Jacques tortured and executed.I suppose the belief is that his suffering made his powerful soul imprint his appearence on the cloth before he died.I’ve heard the cloth is dated from medival times,and it’s made from linen that’s native to West Europe-that cancels out the jesus origin somewhat.

No, it is a painting. They tried to turn it into a 3-d image of a man, but the proportions are incorrect, and it ends up looking like a grotesque. When you see it turned into a ‘human’ face, there is a LOT of CGA adjustment. The other thing people don’t realize is that in the 1300, ‘shrouds of Turin’ were a dime a dozen. They were created by the knights returning from the Crusades, looking for a way to survive. The current ‘shroud’ whose owner admitted making the fake, is the only survivor. Many were destroyed to boost the authenticity of this one.

Signature

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Another bizzare theory about the shroud:The image on it is of Jacques De Molay,who was a leader of the knights templar in the 1300’s.The pope wanted the templars dead so he could get his hands on their money,and he had Jacques tortured and executed.I suppose the belief is that his suffering made his powerful soul imprint his appearence on the cloth before he died.I’ve heard the cloth is dated from medival times,and it’s made from linen that’s native to West Europe-that cancels out the jesus origin somewhat.

No, it is a painting. They tried to turn it into a 3-d image of a man, but the proportions are incorrect, and it ends up looking like a grotesque. When you see it turned into a ‘human’ face, there is a LOT of CGA adjustment. The other thing people don’t realize is that in the 1300, ‘shrouds of Turin’ were a dime a dozen. They were created by the knights returning from the Crusades, looking for a way to survive. The current ‘shroud’ whose owner admitted making the fake, is the only survivor. Many were destroyed to boost the authenticity of this one.

I know it’s a painting,you misinterpreted my intent.I mentioned the templar story as an example of deep B.S. concerning the shroud.

I wish it were real. It would be interesting to have a look at Jesus’s Y-chromosome DNA.

That makes me wonder… Wouldn’t he be mostly mitochondrial DNA???

Parthenogenesis, all mama’s nuclear and mitochondrial DNA and none of dad’s.

Exactly! Since he doesn’t really have a dad, right?

Well traveler you had me laughing at your astuteness, . . .
and I’ll know better than to ask teach about a movie I haven’t seen yet
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

mid atlantic - 21 June 2011 02:21 PM

Another bizzare theory about the shroud:
The image on it is of Jacques De Molay,who was a leader of the knights templar in the 1300’s.The pope wanted the templars dead so he could get his hands on their money,and he had Jacques tortured and executed.I suppose the belief is that his suffering made his powerful soul imprint his appearence on the cloth before he died.I’ve heard the cloth is dated from medival times,and it’s made from linen that’s native to West Europe-that cancels out the jesus origin somewhat.

That’s almost as fun a theory as the one about Jesus having kids and the Holy Grail actually being Jesus’s blood descendants.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

asanta - 21 June 2011 03:27 PM

No, it is a painting. They tried to turn it into a 3-d image of a man, but the proportions are incorrect, and it ends up looking like a grotesque. When you see it turned into a ‘human’ face, there is a LOT of CGA adjustment. The other thing people don’t realize is that in the 1300, ‘shrouds of Turin’ were a dime a dozen. They were created by the knights returning from the Crusades, looking for a way to survive. The current ‘shroud’ whose owner admitted making the fake, is the only survivor. Many were destroyed to boost the authenticity of this one.

Right…, and next you’re going to tell me my sliver of wood - officially certified (!) to be from the true and genuine cross the lord was crucified on, is fake.
... it came from Rome, don’t that mean nothin

It’s a hoot, and yet also a sign of the trouble we are in as a civilization, that people still buy the premise behind the shroud-of-Turin myth. It reminds me of an entertainment facility called Medieval Times. They franchise the operation, I understand. We have one near us, about a mile from Giants Stadium. The building is made to look like a medieval castle - sort of - and they hire actors to play knights. They have an indoor arena in which the “knights” compete on behalf of teams. (Audience members are seated in sections according to their team.) They serve roasted chicken and a baked potato, which you eat with your fingers, so it’s medieval. Oh, and there’s music - piped in over a loudspeaker, of course. I laughed out loud when they played Johann Strauss’ Skaters’ Waltz.